Many market commentators are stating that the unwinding of the yen carry trade on August 5^th was not an economic event, did not signal a recession, and is now in the rearview mirror. This would be nice, but it may be wishful thinking.

The August 5^th selloff may not have signaled a recession, and we also characterized it as a liquidity event, but the carry trade unwinding was still significant for many reasons. First, it was triggered by the first rate hike by the Bank of Japan in 17 years and this sparked a sharp reversal in the yen. Both of these represent economic shifts in the global economy, and they are apt to have longer-term implications. Second, the intensity of the decline was the result of leverage that was no longer viable given the shift in interest rates and the yen. This leverage was what helped drive financial securities higher in the past twelve months and this excess “demand” is unlikely to return in the near future. If we are right, without a new bullish catalyst, it may be difficult for equity indices to exceed their 2024 peaks this year.

There has been a lot of focus on the VIX index since the August 5^th sell-off and many well-known strategists are calling the 65 intra-day peak in the index “the third highest in history.” The VIX hitting this “extreme” reading is a reason some believe August 5^th was a major bottom. In truth, the index was created in 1993 (based on the S&P 100 index) and revised in 2003 (based on the S&P 500 index), but the CBOE provides data that goes back to 1986. This historical data is important because it allows us to look at the October 1987 crash as a benchmark for volatility. August 5^th generated a nice jump in the index, but it was far from the third highest in history on either an intra-day or on a closing price basis (even without using the 1987 data!) See page 3. This appears to be another example of wishful thinking by bullish analysts. Moreover, what the history of the VIX index does show is that after a sharp jump in the index, it usually takes time for price volatility to subside.

One concern we have is that when deleveraging like what took place on August 5 occurs, there can be losses in some portfolios that, in time, could prove to be unmanageable. For example, when Russia defaulted on its debt in August 1998, the losses suffered by Long-Term Capital Management, a highly leveraged fixed income hedge fund founded by a former Solomon Brothers bond trader and a Nobel-prize winning economist, led to a government-sponsored bailout in September 1998. LTCM’s struggle was not widely known for weeks. The fact that the equity market has recovered much of its recent losses is comforting. Recent losses may have moderated, but they may also be temporary.

In retrospect, a number of extremes appeared in the first half of the year that were troubling. According to a recent S&P Global article, the representation of mega-cap companies in the S&P 500 reached a multi-decade high in March when the cumulative weight of the five largest companies in the S&P 500 hit 25.3%. This level has not been seen since December 1970, a 54-year record.

Additionally, data from the Office of Financial Research (OFR), a department within the Treasury Department, shows hedge funds also touched extremes at the end of the first quarter. Assets of qualifying hedge funds totaled $4.12 trillion as of March, of which the largest were “other” with $1.24 trillion, equity with $1.16 trillion, and multi-strategy funds with $702 billion. The overall borrowing relative to assets (net asset-weighted average ratio) was 1.2 for this universe of funds. See page 4.

Leverage is an important part of the equity market, particularly in a bubble market. And since hedge funds are major users of leverage this OFR data is useful. It shows that macro hedge funds ($172 billion in assets) were the most highly leveraged in March with a net asset-weighted average ratio of 6.5, a record for that category. Relative value funds followed with a ratio of 6.2 and multi-strategy ranked third with a ratio of 4.0 (also a record for that category). Equally important is the pace of borrowing. Net borrowing increased 54% YOY for relative value funds, 34% YOY for multi-strategy funds, and 28% YOY for macro funds. In terms of borrowing, $2.3 trillion was done through prime brokerage, $2.1 through repo borrowing, and $556 billion through other secured borrowing. Although this data is only quarterly and is reported with a delay, it does show that leverage was increasing substantially in the first quarter of this year. See page 5.

In terms of liquidity, the Fed’s balance sheet was $7.23 trillion as of August 7, down nearly $1.8 trillion from its April 2022 peak, and down almost $33 billion from a month earlier. But this has not significantly impacted individual investors since demand deposits, retail money market funds, or small-denomination time deposits all grew slightly in the same period. These accounts, plus “other liquid deposits” sum to $18.6 trillion that currently sit in bank deposits. See page 6. In short, the Fed’s careful quantitative tightening is not changing consumer cash balances, and this is positive for equities. Lowering interest rates, if it takes place in September, would improve investors’ liquidity even more.

The NFIB small business optimism index rose 2.2 points in July, to 93.7, the highest readings since February 2022, or in 2 ½ years. However, this was still the 31^st month below the long-term average of 98. Fewer small businesses indicated that they planned to increase wages in July and 25% noted that inflation is their single most important problem. However, there was an increase in the number of businesses planning to increase inventories and this could help third quarter GDP. See page 7.

Producer price data for July showed final demand inflation was rising only 0.1% month-over-month and 2.2% YOY. This was down from the 2.7% YOY seen in June and received well by the market. However, beneath the surface, we noted that final demand for trade services fell 0.7% YOY, and this calmed prices for the month. Trade indexes measure changes in margins received by wholesalers and retailers. However, final demand services, less trade, transportation, and warehousing, showed prices rising a much more worrisome 4.1% YOY. See page 8.

Technical Update

Last week’s sharp sell-off resulted in the Nasdaq Composite and the Russell 2000 index successfully testing their 200-day moving averages on an intra-day basis. The S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average are trading well above their 200-day moving averages. But for confirmation, we are watching Microsoft Corp. (MSFT-$414.01) and Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN-$170.23) which broke below their respective 200-day moving averages last week and are now struggling to stay just above those long-term benchmarks. See page 11.

The 25-day up/down volume oscillator is 2.02, in neutral territory, but recovering, after absorbing a 92% down day on August 5. This followed 90% down days seen on April 12, 2024, February 13, 2024, and December 20, 2023. A 90% up day would suggest the worst of the decline is over; however, the last 90% up day was recorded way back on December 13, 2023. This oscillator failed to reach an overbought reading on the last rally and therefore did not confirm the advance. To date, an uptrend in this oscillator off the 2022 low, remains intact and lends a bullish bias to an otherwise neutral position in this index. Should this trend line be broken it would be a warning sign for the longer-term stock market. See page 12.
Gail Dudack

Click to Download

In previous reports we have written about the risk of the 2024 market being an equity bubble — though not an extended one — and that bubble markets are always difficult to quantify since they are driven by a combination of liquidity, leverage, and greed, not fundamentals. Leverage was concentrated in brokerage margin accounts in the late 1990s and this made the leverage driving the 2000 peak easier to measure. Today leverage is widely dispersed, and investors use a variety of tools to multiply their buying power. Some of this is displayed by the historic asset and volume levels in options, futures, ETFs, and a variety of debt instruments.

The Carry Trade

Tight monetary policy and rising interest rates work against equity bubbles, which may explain why US investors have been riveted on when the Federal Reserve would begin to lower interest rates. But this narrow focus on the Fed may be why last week’s rate hike by the Bank of Japan came as a surprise. The BOJ’s first rate increase in 17 years pricked the global financial bubble by triggering a sharp rise in the yen and squeezing the yen carry trade. Yen-funded trades have been used to finance the acquisition of stocks for years and the amount of money in the carry trade is unknown. But since it is based upon a weak-to-stable currency and zero-to-low interest rates, the yen’s surge and the BOJ’s rate hike suddenly made this source of funding less viable.

Clearly, the events of the last few trading sessions and the unwinding of the carry trade is a liquidity event and not an economic issue. But the sizeable losses in equity markets imply there are many accounts still under water and the reverberations are apt to take days or weeks to understand. In the meantime, we remain cautious.

One way to measure risk after a liquidity event is to monitor market data, in particular, daily volume levels and 90% up and/or down days. Not surprisingly, August 5^th was a 92% down day in the US market on volume that was nearly 30% above the 10-day average. It would not be unusual if there were more 90% down days in the weeks ahead. However, once a 90% up day appears on better-than-average volume, it is a sign that downside risk has been minimized. In short, while the chorus is singing “buy the dip” we would caution that a safer bet is to wait for a 90% up day. This is not a guarantee that the lows have been made, but historically it has shown that the downside risk is minimal.

The Larger Backdrop

However, the unwinding of the carry trade is not taking place in a vacuum. It is second quarter earnings season and in the long run, earnings will be more important for stock prices than the carry trade. But results for the quarter have been mixed. Disappointing results were reported by McDonald’s Corp. (MCD – $270.06) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT – $399.61), while Meta Platforms, Inc. (META – $494.09) beat expectations. News such as Nvidia Corp.’s (NVDA – $104.25) delivery delay for its new Blackwell chip, Warren Buffett selling half of his stake in Apple Inc. (AAPL – $207.23), a recent Federal judge ruling that Google (Alphabet Inc. GOOG – $160.54) is a monopoly, Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN – $161.93) lowering forecasts for earnings and revenue, all weigh heavily on the big tech sector and these stocks have been at the core of the stock market’s advance in the last year.

And despite the large declines in the popular averages, the stock market remains richly valued. Based upon the LSEG IBES earnings estimate for calendar 2024, equities are trading at a PE of 21.5 times. When added to inflation of 3.0%, this sum of 24.5 is above the 23.8 level that defines an overvalued equity market. Based on next year’s 2025 estimate the PE falls to 18.7 times and the sum equals 21.7 which is at the high end of the neutral range. However, 2025 estimates may be high, particularly if the economy slows. See pages 10 and 11.

Economic Review

July’s employment report showing 114,000 new jobs and a 4.3% unemployment rate was not that weak, in our view. The 3-month average actually rose from 167,670 to 169,670 because April’s payrolls added a mere 108,000 jobs. What may have made investors nervous about July’s data is that the birth/death adjustment was a positive 246,000 which means the unadjusted not-seasonally-adjusted payrolls were negative 132,000 jobs in July. However, this was not the first month of negative payrolls before the birth/death adjustment. It also occurred two times in 2023 as well as in April and May of this year. See page 5. Investors reacted badly to the jobs report because they were already worried about earnings.

The unemployment rate rose from 4.05% to 4.25%, however, the average long-term rate is much higher at 5.7%. The unemployment rate for women rose from 4.3% to 4.5% while for men, the rate much lower, rising from 4.1% to 4.2%. Unemployment by level of education was more disparate. Those with less than a high school education saw unemployment jump from 5.3% to 6.5% in July. This is a worry. A high school degree but no college saw an increase from 4.1% to 4.7%. Those with some college rose from 3.5% to 3.8% and a bachelor’s degree or higher rate edged up from 2.6% to 2.7%. See page 6.

What concerns us is the year-over-year growth rate in employment in the household survey which has been below 1% YOY all year and fell from 0.12% YOY in June to 0.04% YOY in July. This month, the year-over-year growth rate in the establishment survey slipped to 1.6%, the second month in a row below the long-term average growth rate of 1.69%. These growth rates will be important to monitor because negative job growth has been an excellent forecaster of recessions. We are not there yet, but the trend is ominous. See pages 3 and 4.

The ISM non-manufacturing index rebounded from 49.6 to 54.5 in July, with all components except supplier deliveries rising for the month. The employment index jumped from 46.1 to 51.1. Conversely, the ISM manufacturing index declined in July from 48.5 to 46.8, with five components falling for the month, four increasing and one unchanged. The employment index was weak, slipping from 49.3 to 43.4. See page 8.

Total vehicle unit sales rose to 16.3 million in July, up from 15.6 million in June, but down 0.9% YOY. Despite July’s uptick, this pace is well below the 18.5 million units seen in April 2021 and October 2017. Pending home sales rose 4.8% in June, rebounding from May’s record low reading of 70.9, and with sales rising in all regions. Nevertheless, June’s index was down 2.6% YOY. See page 9.

Technicals

Monday’s sharp sell-off led to the Nasdaq Composite and the Russell 2000 index both successfully testing their 200-day moving averages on an intra-day basis. The SPX and DJIA are trading well above their 200-day MA’s. See page 12. Stocks to watch for signs of further weakness are Microsoft Corp. (MSFT-$399.61) and Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN-$161.93) which are currently trading below their respective 200-day moving averages. The 25-day up/down volume oscillator is 1.39 and in neutral territory after absorbing a 92% down day on August 5. This followed 90% down days seen on April 12, 2024, February 13, 2024, and December 20, 2023. The last 90% up day was recorded on December 13, 2023. This oscillator failed to reach an overbought reading on the last rally and therefore did not confirm the advance. We will be watching to see if the uptrend in this oscillator from the 2022 lows remains intact. If not, it would be a longer-term warning sign for the stock market.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download